Citation Nr: 1011507
Decision Date: 03/26/10 Archive Date: 04/07/10
DOCKET NO. 05-25 639 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Louis,
Missouri
THE ISSUE
Entitlement to service connection for a skin disorder of the
feet.
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
W. Yates, Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The Veteran served on active duty from June 1973 to June
1976. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans'
Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2004 rating
decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional
Office (RO) in St. Louis, Missouri.
In July 2007, the Board issued a decision which reopened the
Veteran's claim seeking entitlement to service connection for
a skin disorder of the feet. The Board then remanded this
matter for additional evidentiary development.
For the reasons indicated below, this appeal is again
remanded to the RO via the Appeals Management Center in
Washington, DC.
REMAND
The Veteran is seeking service connection for bilateral foot
fungus. He alleges that this disorder began during his
service in Panama, and has continued ever since.
Pursuant to the Board's July 2007 remand, the RO was to
request that the Veteran identify all VA and non-VA medical
treatment providers that have treated him for a skin disorder
of the feet from June 1976 to the present, and then attempt
to obtain those records. Despite multiple requests for this
information by the RO in July 2007, September 2008, April
2009, no reply was received. However, the evidence in the
claims files suggests that the Veteran changed his mailing
address.
Recently, in February 2010, the Veteran submitted a statement
indicating that after using over the counter creams and
salves over the years, "[i]t finally got to a point that I
could no longer afford these medications and I started going
to the Kansas City [VA Medical Center] for my foot condition;
please obtain those records to be used in support of my
claim." Moreover, the Veteran's treatment at this VA
facility is noted in a July 2009 deferred rating decision and
his December 2009 VA examination for feet. Under the
circumstances of this case, the Board finds that the RO must
attempt to obtain these records. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet.
App. 268, 271 (1998) (holding that a remand by the Board
confers on the Veteran, as a matter of law, a right to
compliance with the remand instructions, and imposes upon VA
a concomitant duty to ensure compliance with the terms of the
remand).
Accordingly, the case is remanded for the following actions:
1. The RO must request that the Veteran
identify all VA and non-VA medical
treatment providers who have treated him
for a skin disorder since his discharge
from the service. The Veteran must
specify when he began receiving treatment
at the Kansas City VA Medical Center. If
the Veteran fails to respond, the RO must
attempt to obtain all of the Veteran's
treatment records from the Kansas City VA
Medical Center since June 1976. All
attempts to secure this evidence must be
documented in the claims file by the RO.
If, after making reasonable efforts to
obtain the identified records, the RO is
unable to secure such records, the RO
must notify the Veteran and (a) identify
the specific records the RO is unable to
obtain; (b) briefly explain the efforts
that the RO made to obtain those records;
(c) describe any further action to be
taken by the RO with respect to the
claim; and (d) that he is ultimately
responsible for providing the evidence.
The Veteran must then be given an
opportunity to respond.
2. After completing the above actions,
and any other development as may be
indicated by any response received as a
consequence of the actions taken in the
paragraph above, the claim must be
readjudicated. If the claim remains
denied, a supplemental statement of the
case addressing all evidence received
since the December 2009 supplemental
statement of the case must be provided to
the Veteran. After the Veteran has had
an adequate opportunity to respond, the
appeal must be returned to the Board for
appellate review.
No action is required by the Veteran until he receives
further notice; however, he may present additional evidence
or argument while the case is in remand status at the RO.
Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999).
_________________________________________________
JOY A. MCDONALD
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals
Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the
Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the
nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a
decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal.
38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2009).